Non-invasive respiratory support strategies in COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gorman E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051928 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Non-invasive respiratory support strategies in COVID-19.
Gorman Ellen E Connolly Bronwen B Couper Keith K Perkins Gavin D GD McAuley Daniel F DF
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20210416 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBackgroundThe effectiveness of non-invasive respiratory strategies, namely CPAP and HFNO, in reducing the risk of mortality and tracheal intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 is not well established.MethodsA thorough literature search was conducted across 3 electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) from inception through July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the impact of CPAP or HFNO on clinical outcomes in patients infected with COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. End-points included all-cause mortality and risk of tracheal intubation. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and analysis was performed using a random effects model. I2 index was used to assess heterogeneity.ResultsFrom the 1041 articles retrieved from initial search, 7 potentially relevant studies (n = 2831 patients) were included in the final analysis. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, non-invasive respiratory strategies reduced the risk of tracheal intubation (RR = 0.84, [95% CI 0.72, 0.98]; p = 0.02, I2 = 43%) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.83, [95% CI 0.71-0.97]; p = 0.02, I2 = 0%) in patients infected with COVID-19 However, reduction in length of hospital stay was not significant between the non-invasive respiratory group and conventional oxygen therapy (MD = -0.60, [95% CI -2.17 - 0.98]; p = 0.46, I2 = 26%).ConclusionThis meta-analysis supports the application of non-invasive respiratory strategy is feasible as it can delay the start of tracheal intubation and reduce mortality rates among patients infected with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9640384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.
| S-EPMC8803573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While the incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients is very high, in patients under non-invasive respiratory support (NIS) is still unknown. The specific incidence of thrombotic events in each of the clinical scenarios within the broad spectrum of severity of COVID-19, is not clearly established, and this has not allowed the implementation of thromboprophylaxis or anticoagulation for routine care in COVID-19. Patients admitted in a semi-critical unit treated initially with NIS, especially Continuous-Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), were included in the study. The cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism was analyzed and compared between patients with good response to NIS and patients with clinical deterioration that required orotracheal intubation. 93 patients were included and 16% required mechanical ventilation (MV) after the NIS. The crude cumulative incidence of the PE was 14% (95%, CI 8-22) for all group. In patients that required orotracheal intubation and MV, the cumulative incidence was significantly higher [33% (95%, CI 16-58)] compared to patients that continued with non-invasive support [11% (CI 5-18)] (Log-Rank, p = 0.013). Patients that required mechanical ventilation were at higher risk of PE for a HR of 4.3 (95%CI 1.2-16). In conclusion, cumulative incidence of PE is remarkably higher in critically patients with a potential impact in COVID-19 evolution. In this context, patients under NIS are a very high-risk group for developing PE without a clear strategy regarding thromboprophylaxis.
| S-EPMC7857998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Respirable aerosols (< 5 µm in diameter) present a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Guidelines recommend using aerosol precautions during aerosol-generating procedures, and droplet (> 5 µm) precautions at other times. However, emerging evidence indicates respiratory activities may be a more important source of aerosols than clinical procedures such as tracheal intubation. We aimed to measure the size, total number and volume of all human aerosols exhaled during respiratory activities and therapies. We used a novel chamber with an optical particle counter sampling at 100 l.min-1 to count and size-fractionate close to all exhaled particles (0.5-25 µm). We compared emissions from ten healthy subjects during six respiratory activities (quiet breathing; talking; shouting; forced expiratory manoeuvres; exercise; and coughing) with three respiratory therapies (high-flow nasal oxygen and single or dual circuit non-invasive positive pressure ventilation). Activities were repeated while wearing facemasks. When compared with quiet breathing, exertional respiratory activities increased particle counts 34.6-fold during talking and 370.8-fold during coughing (p < 0.001). High-flow nasal oxygen 60 at l.min-1 increased particle counts 2.3-fold (p = 0.031) during quiet breathing. Single and dual circuit non-invasive respiratory therapy at 25/10 cm.H2 O with quiet breathing increased counts by 2.6-fold and 7.8-fold, respectively (both p < 0.001). During exertional activities, respiratory therapies and facemasks reduced emissions compared with activities alone. Respiratory activities (including exertional breathing and coughing) which mimic respiratory patterns during illness generate substantially more aerosols than non-invasive respiratory therapies, which conversely can reduce total emissions. We argue the risk of aerosol exposure is underappreciated and warrants widespread, targeted interventions.
| S-EPMC8250912 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8214315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and aimNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) have been widely employed to treat acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia, but their role in terms of efficacy and safety are still debated. The aim of this review was to analyse mortality and intubation rates in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV/CPAP.MethodsRapid review methodology was applied to include all the studies published since December-2019 until November-2020 with available data on in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV or CPAP.Results23 manuscripts were included (4776 patients, 66% males, 46% with hypertension). 46% of patients received non-invasive respiratory support, of which 48.4% with CPAP, 46% with NIV, and 4% with either CPAP or NIV. Non-invasive respiratory support failed in 47.7% of patients, of which 26.5% were intubated and 40.9% died. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients treated with NIV compared with CPAP (35.1% vs. 22.2%). Complications were under-reported, but mostly not related to CPAP/NIV treatment.ConclusionCPAP and NIV appear equally and frequently applied in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, but associated with high mortality. Robust evidence is urgently needed to confirm the clinical efficacy of non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19-related ARDS.
| S-EPMC8137355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe compared the risk of environmental contamination among COVID-19 patients who received high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) via nasal cannula for respiratory failure.MethodAir was sampled from the hospital isolation rooms with 12 air changes/hr where 26 COVID-19 patients received HFNC (up to 60L/min, n=6), NIV (n=6), or COT (up to 5L/min of oxygen, n=14). Surface samples were collected from 16 patients during air sampling.ResultsViral RNA was detected at comparable frequency in air samples collected from patients receiving HFNC (3/54, 5.6%), NIV (1/54, 1.9%), and COT (4/117, 3.4%) (p=0.579). Similarly, the risk of surface contamination was comparable among patients receiving HFNC (3/46, 6.5%), NIV (14/72, 19.4%), and COT (8/59, 13.6%) (p=0.143). An increment in the cyclic thresholds of the upper respiratory specimen prior to air sampling were associated with a reduced SARS-CoV-2 detection risk in air [OR 0.83 (95%CI 0.69 - 0.96), p=0.027] by univariate logistic regression.ConclusionNo increased risk of environmental contamination in the isolation rooms was observed in the use of HFNC and NIV versus COT among COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. Higher viral load in the respiratory samples was associated with positive air samples.
| S-EPMC10175076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the clinical outcome of octogenarian patients hospitalised for COVID-19 is very poor, here we assessed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 year or older hospitalised for COVID-19 receiving non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS). A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted in seven hospitals in Northern Italy. All patients aged ≥80 years with COVID-19 associated hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) undergoing NIRS between 24 February 2020, and 31 March 2021, were included. Out of 252 study participants, 156 (61.9%) and 163 (64.6%) died during hospital stay and within 90 days from hospital admission, respectively. In this case, 228 (90.5%) patients only received NIRS (NIRS group), while 24 (9.5%) were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) after NIRS failure (NIRS+IMV group). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between NIRS and NIRS+IMV group (61.0% vs. 70.8%, respectively; p = 0.507), while survival probability at 90 days was significantly higher for NIRS compared to NIRS+IMV patients (0.379 vs. 0.147; p = 0.0025). The outcome of octogenarian patients with COVID-19 receiving NIRS is quite poor. Caution should be used when considering transition from NIRS to IMV after NIRS failure.
| S-EPMC8911338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) has increasingly been used in the management of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, but questions remain about the utility, safety, and outcome benefit of NIRS strategies. We identified two randomised controlled trials and 83 observational studies, compromising 13 931 patients, that examined the effects of NIRS modalities-high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure-on patients with COVID-19. Of 5120 patients who were candidates for full treatment escalation, 1880 (37%) progressed to invasive mechanical ventilation and 3658 of 4669 (78%) survived to study end. Survival was 30% among the 1050 patients for whom NIRS was the stated ceiling of treatment. The two randomised controlled trials indicate superiority of non-invasive ventilation over high-flow nasal oxygen in reducing the need for intubation. Reported complication rates were low. Overall, the studies indicate that NIRS in patients with COVID-19 is safe, improves resource utilisation, and might be associated with better outcomes. To guide clinical decision making, prospective, randomised studies are needed to address timing of intervention, optimal use of NIRS modalities-alone or in combination-and validation of tools such as oxygenation indices, response to a trial of NIRS, and inflammatory markers as predictors of treatment success.
| S-EPMC8577844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-invasive respiratory support is increasingly used in lieu of intubated ventilator support for the management of neonatal respiratory failure, particularly in very low birth weight infants at risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The optimal approach and mode for non-invasive support remains uncertain. This article reviews the application of high-frequency ventilation for non-invasive respiratory support in neonates, including basic science studies on mechanics of gas exchange, animal model investigations, and a review of current clinical use in human neonates.
| S-EPMC4902728 | biostudies-other